Excerpt: - .....no order setting aside a sale shall be made unless notice of the application has been given to all persons affected thereby. it would follow from this that in a proper case a sale can be set aside it notice goes to all the persons affected, and that it is unnecessary under this proviso that all the persons affected should be formally impleaded. so it is clear that the learned district judge's order is wrong.3. mr. kameswara rao for the auction purchasers contends that the lower court should not have allowed the application to proceed without requiring the appellants to furnish security or to deposit the sale amount under the first proviso to rule 80 and that his doing so was the result of collusion between the decree-holder and the appellants. mr. ramachandra rao for the appellants.....

Judgment:

Horwili, J.

1. In a court sale two persons bid jointly, and the sale was knocked down in their joint names. The judgment-debtors then filed an application under Order 21, Rule 90 to have the sale set aside on various grounds, and impleaded only one of the joint bidders. The Court dismissed the application on the ground that only one of the joint bidders had been impleaded.

2. Mr. Kameswara Rao for the respondent agrees with the learned counsel for the appellants that the order of the learned District Judge cannot be sustained on that ground, The proviso to Order 21, Rule 92 (2) is to the effect that no order setting aside a sale shall be made unless notice of the application has been given to all persons affected thereby. It would follow from this that in a proper case a sale can be set aside it notice goes to all the persons affected, and that it is unnecessary under this proviso that all the persons affected should be formally impleaded. So it is clear that the learned District Judge's order is wrong.

3. Mr. Kameswara Rao for the auction purchasers contends that the lower Court should not have allowed the application to proceed without requiring the appellants to furnish security or to deposit the sale amount under the first proviso to Rule 80 and that his doing so was the result of collusion between the decree-holder and the appellants. Mr. Ramachandra Rao for the appellants concedes that as far as the auction-purchasers are concerned, the application to set aside the sale should be considered as not admitted ; so that it is still open to the Court to direct the appellants to furnish security or deposit the gale amount if it thinks proper to do so.

4. In allowing the appeal, we set aside the order of the District Judge and restore E. A. No. 66 of 1946 to file. The learned Judge will consider whether so far as the auction purchasers are concerned the appellants should be required to furnish security or deposit the sale amount, The costs of this appeal will be provided for in, the order of the lower Court.